In the complex and nerdy world of energy policy, there was a victory lap of sorts under way in Colorado on Monday.

After a decade of going its own way in reducing power plant pollution, it seems Colorado has created a national model for taking on global warming at the state level.

That was apparent from even a cursory reading of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s highly anticipated and ambitious rules that propose reducing carbon pollution from power plants 30 percent by 2030.

The massive document mentions Colorado several times, and not just for what the state did, but how its various interests worked collaboratively.

“Collaboration” may sound like a nice way of doing things, but think about the conflicts that inevitably will arise when power companies, die-hard environmentalists, regulators, voters, legislators from both parties and the state’s executive branch are involved in creating policy.

But in doing business that way, conflicts tend to result in compromise that everyone finds a way to live with.

Colorado’s model is multi-faceted and unique, and the Obama administration, which is taking on climate change as a major second-term initiative, apparently liked what it saw.

“You wind up with Coloradans having made the right bets since 2004,” said former Gov. Bill Ritter, who made green energy a priority during his tenure.

On Monday, energy policy experts were poring over the details of the proposed rules to determine exactly what was left for Colorado to accomplish to meet carbon targets.

Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said early word is that the state is already a third or halfway to meeting the targets, with much of the rest of the proposed reductions already in the works.

Xcel Energy, the state’s largest electric utility, estimates that since 2005, it has reduced carbon emissions from Colorado plants by 22 percent. By 2020, that number will soar to 35 percent.

The proposed rules, Wolk said, are a “validation” of the work that has been done at the state level, starting with voters, who established a 10 percent renewable energy standard in 2004.

The initial standard was championed by several influential state lawmakers, including then-House Speaker Lola Spradley, a Republican who saw the business opportunities renewables could bring to rural Colorado.

Clearly, energy policy decisions made over the last decade were not solely driven by a “green” philosophy. Economic development has been a factor as well as health concerns.

That 10 percent standard, approved by voters, was later bumped by lawmakers to 20 and ultimately 30 percent in 2010.

The legislature passed the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act the same year. It called for the retirement of hundreds of megawatts of coal-fired electrical generation along the Front Range and replaced it with cleaner-burning, gas-powered units.

To be sure, it wasn’t just carbon reductions that policy makers were after in writing the legislation. They were taking aim at haze and ground-level ozone that cause all manner of problems, including respiratory illness.

The usual objection to cleaner energy sources, no matter how beneficial, is cost. And for good reason. Large-scale retrofitting or replacement of power generating equipment is not free.

However, Mark Stutz, an Xcel Energy spokesman, said Monday that while it’s early in the evaluation process, utility executives expect any rate increases as a result of the proposed rules would be “fairly minimal.”

That’s good news, and further underscores the power of foresight and creating policies that fit the state like a custom suit.